Feminist Knowledge | Land Issues / Economics

Women and Land Reform in South Africa
by Marinda Weideman*

Abstract

This article evaluates the impact of ten years of land reform in South Africa on the social, political and economic status of women.  Each of the three components of the South African land reform programme is evaluated independently.  The South African land reform programme has done little to improve the position of women (compared to men), because of the failure to take account of the differences between men and women, as well as among women, in a context of an essentially market-based land reform programme.  The result has been inappropriate agricultural and development policies, inappropriate technology and inappropriate land distribution.  Women’s inferior position in a fundamentally patriarchal society (rural areas and under systems of traditional authority) has further contributed to the tendency among policy developers and implementers to take the “male” perspective as the “community” perspective.  No land reform programme can succeed unless women actively engage in policy formulation and implementation, which, in turn requires social mobilisation and the emergence of a strong rural women’s movement.  

Overview

The South African Land Reform Programme has three parts. First, the Restitution Programme, which allows people who were dispossessed as a result of racial discrimination after June 1913 to apply for land restitution or financial compensation through the Land Claims Court and Commission. Plagued by problems (mostly bureaucratic) the programme had benefited 83 661 households (444 002 individuals) by June 2003 (36 488 claims settled, covering 590 112 hectares). [1]

Second, the Redistribution Programme which would provide the poor [2] with residential and agricultural land to improve livelihoods. This programme was based on market principles (with some state assistance). The Settlement/Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) was introduced to the value of R15 000 (later R16 000) per household to purchase land from a "willing-seller". By November 1999, 714 407 hectares had been redistributed to 360 256 beneficiaries (55 424 households) [3] . The total area redistributed was less than 1% of the 32 million hectares of agricultural land in South Africa. By August 2001 one million hectares had been redistributed. Most problems emerged around group acquisition, ownership and management of land, lack of capacity and resources in the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs (DLA) - exacerbated by the market approach to land acquisition - and the lack of post-settlement support. Thoko Didiza who became Minister of the DLA in 1999, immediately embarked on a policy review and placed a controversial moratorium on redistribution projects. After two years of confusion the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development Programme (LRAD) aiming to transfer 3.5 million hectares of agricultural land (one third) to beneficiaries in 15 years was unveiled. The programme is based on a government grant system (sliding scale) and requires an "own contribution" from beneficiaries. At the lowest end of the scale a contribution of R5 000 (in cash, labour or kind) qualifies a beneficiary for a R20 000 grant. At the highest end a R405 000 contribution qualifies one for R100 000. Significantly, individuals rather than households are eligible for grants. Where a poor household could formerly access a maximum of R16 000, several adult members of the same household can now access R20 000 each. Beneficiaries of SLAG can trade-up and receive additional grants under the LRAD programme. Despite a number of sub-programmes focussed on the needs of impoverished households the emphasis of LRAD is on economically viable projects and the development of a black commercial agricultural class.

Tenure reform can be divided into reform in the former "homelands" and reform on farms. Tenure reform policy for the former "homelands" has been controversial. Didiza shelved the Draft Land Rights Bill (that took four years to develop) in 1999. The latest policy document, the Communal Land Rights Bill has been criticised for arguably increasing the power of traditional authorities over land administration in the bantustans. The two mechanisms for tenure reform on farms are the Land Reform Labour Tenants Act (LTA) and the Extension of Tenure Security Act (ESTA). The LTA introduced legal procedures for the eviction of labour tenants but was ineffective due to capacity constraints in the DLA, the lack of publicity around the Act and the exclusion of large groups of labour tenants and farm dwellers from the ambit of the Act. The ESTA was promulgated to prevent arbitrary evictions. This controversial piece of legislation appears to be largely ineffective and even potential beneficiaries are asking that the Act be scrapped.

Demographics

According to the National Land Committee (NLC) 60% of women compared to 41% of men live in poverty. Approximately 75% of female-headed households (accounting for at least 40% of the total number of SA households) are classified poor. [4] Furthermore, 60% of rural and 48% of urban African women are unemployed, 12% of employed males in urban areas earn less than R500 per month whereas 26% of employed women in urban areas earn less than R500 per month. The respective figures for rural areas are 39% and 62%. [5] Women particularly in rural areas are isolated and have limited access to training and educational opportunities. These factors culminate to exclude a large number of women from the land reform programme.

Institutional commitment

In terms of policy and legislation there is no doubt that the ANC led government is committed to gender equity. However, policies and legislation alone will not result in gender equity in land access and ownership. The ANC's 1992 Land Policy document called for special procedures to ensure that women gain equal access to land and participate effectively in policy formulation and decision making. [6] The Reconstruction and Development Programme recognised women's land rights [7] and states that support services and government assistance for agricultural production should especially benefit women (section 4.5.2.4). The 1996 Bill of Rights places an obligation on the government to "take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources" to ensure that "equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms". The Bill also prohibits "unfair discrimination" on several grounds, which include gender. [8] The 1997 White Paper on South African Land Policy concedes that "a key contributing factor to women's inability to overcome poverty is lack of access to and rights in land". [9]

Transformation in the Department of Land Affairs

The White Paper states that the DLA should embark upon a transformation programme to change it into an institution that reflects the gender composition of the South African population. This has not yet happened. In 1999 the DLA's Change Management Committee approved a target for 40% female representation in middle and top management structures by 2005. In July 1996, the Land Reform Gender Policy and Implementation Sub-Directorate (LRGPI) was established within the DLA to ensure that gender issues were central to all land reform projects. The LRGPI held poorly attended gender sensitisation workshops for DLA officials and included a gender module in the land reform programme's management and orientation courses. [10] The vast majority of land reform project implementers are still male and many of them are not equipped with the skills necessary to mainstream gender in land reform projects. [11] Govender-Van Wyk [12] reports that the perception among female land reform beneficiaries and role players both within and outside the DLA is that policy implementers continue to view gender issues as "cumbersome".

The DLA has also not yet developed an effective monitoring system and accordingly is unable to provide information on the number of female claimants and/or beneficiaries or on the overall impact of the land reform programme on women. The absence of statistics in turn impact negatively on the DLA's ability to formulate and implement policies that effectively address women's inequitable access to land. A further constraint is the lack of government capacity (including financial resources and committed personnel) to enforce gender equity.

Assessing the Redistribution Programme

Despite the DLA's identification of women as one of the target beneficiary groups of the Redistribution Programme poor rural women appear to have gained few benefits. In 2000, the NLC estimated that female-headed households represented only 14% of the households to whom land had been transferred under the Redistribution Programme. [13] Similar figures were not available from the DLA.

Gender activists argue that poor rural women face the same constraints as their male counterparts in accessing land through a demand-driven, market-based land redistribution programme, as well as additional gender specific barriers. The most frequently cited factor is that the SLAG was paid to household-heads (i.e. men) and therefore other household members' (i.e. women) access to land continued to be mediated. [14] Because of their isolated and inferior status many women had difficulty accessing information pertaining to the Redistribution Programme. For example, few were aware that women in polygamous marriages who maintained households separate from their husbands/partners - depending on the circumstances - could apply independently for the SLAG. [15] Similarly, women were often unable to effectively articulate their demands and needs for land, which left them vulnerable to exploitation by male members of their communities. The Odendaal's Rust community in the Free State for example, purchased a 1 200-hectare farm for R1.2 million by pooling household grants. Women, in the community, were generally interested in a homestead, while a group of men required grazing land. Although contributing equal amounts (SLAG grants) to the project the men ended up with much larger land areas than the women. The women also lost access to what remained of their grants. [16]

The LRAD Programme aims to "expand opportunities for women . . . in rural areas" and to "overcome the legacy of past racial and gender discrimination in land" by "encouraging" women-only projects and by transferring one third of redistributed land to women. [17] Under LRAD grants will be awarded to adult individuals rather than household-heads, which should help to redress gender inequities. However, the DLA does not have clear guidelines as to how this will be achieved. Given the skewed nature of power relations in society and the absence of accurate statistics with regard to female beneficiaries in the redistribution programme there is little evidence that the DLA will reach its one-third target. For example, nothing prevents men from appropriating grants awarded to women. LRAD could also have unintended consequences such as promoting polygamy - where men appropriate the grants of more than one wife. Furthermore to qualify for a grant under LRAD potential beneficiaries have to make a minimum own contribution of R5 000. Yet poor rural women are generally not able to afford this. The programme may therefore benefit women in strategic/ powerful positions or women who are members of organised groups at the expense of more isolated and impoverished individuals.

Assessing the Restitution Programme

There are no accurate figures available but women do not appear to have benefited visibly from the Restitution Programme. There are three basic reasons for this; the failure to take account of women's particular experience of dispossession, the fact that the Programme is rights based and the absence of appropriate methodologies and procedures in a society in which power relations are skewed in favour of men.

Women have faced a double process of dispossession as black South Africans and as women due to discriminatory cultural and social practices and traditions relating to land ownership and access. [18] The Restitution Programme is essentially rights-based and thus restores land rights to those who formerly held them - i.e. men. [19]

Furthermore women are less likely to be part of the community based organisations that represent claimant groups and male claimants tend to outnumber female claimants. [20] As a former Land Claims Commissioner said: "In the Restitution Court, one often finds that the women simply disappear. Claims are lodged by communities that see land as men's business and hence, they exclude women. It is difficult to ensure that women also benefit". [21] The Land Claims Court and the Commission for the Restitution of Land Rights are legally empowered to ensure that women have equal access to restituted land and/or compensation. The Commission however, has no detailed guidelines in this regard. Hostility to women within communities and the lack of commitment among some officials in the DLA also undermine the Commission and Court's powers.

Once land rights have been restored to communities women tend to have less land, have weaker land rights, have less influence in community decision making and tend to lose access to land as a result of inheritance systems based on male succession. In cases where chiefs are claiming or holding land on behalf of communities, the restitution process has resuscitated the chieftaincy and thereby undermined the government's commitment to restructuring gender relations. [22]

Assessing Tenure Reform

In communal land tenure systems women generally access land through male relatives. [23] Women's lack of authority also limits their control over the land resources that they are able to access. Communal tenure systems for example, generally discourage or prohibit land sales and therefore land transactions take place privately. In cases where disputes arise they cannot be addressed in a public forum. "This insecurity of land transfer is serious for men, but reach prohibitive levels for women". [24] The proposed Land Rights/Draft Tenure Bill released in late November 2001, appeared to increase the power of traditional authorities with regard to land allocation and introduced contentious concepts such as "tribal" land ownership. [25] Detractors maintain that the proposed Bill will undermine the land rights of vulnerable groups especially women.

However, women do not fare better under freehold tenure systems where they have a legal right to own or rent land. Individualisation of tenure could enable women to purchase and hold land in their own right yet, most women lack the resources to do so. Conversion to freehold tenure could mean that women end up with access to less land than they had under communal/traditional land tenure systems. Tenure reform in Kenya in the late 1960s for example, negatively affected women as freehold tenure rights were registered in husband's or other male relatives' names. Women's rights to land in Kenya remained precarious and male mediated under freehold tenure. The experience of women on Zimbabwe's Model A schemes where permits for residential and productive land were given to household heads (males) had similar consequences. Women who were divorced by their husbands tended to loose their rights to land. In cases where men were evicted from resettlement schemes their female partners also lost access to land. [26]

The point is that women are not guaranteed land rights under any system of tenure while societal values remain patriarchal. Cross and Friedman [27] argue that tenure is best understood not as a system of laws but rather as a social and political process. As such, a tenure system is determined by the values of a community the power relations in a community and the unspoken assumptions that operate in a community, rather than by a set of official rules. By implication they argue, it is very difficult for any government to change tenure systems and women's positions therein by means of formal legislation. This does not mean however, that the government should refrain from taking positive legislative and policy steps in an attempt to ensure gender equity in land ownership. A redistribution project in Bangladesh in 1997 provides a positive example. Redistributed plots in the project were leased on a permanent basis - jointly in the names of husband and wife. In case of divorce, legislation stipulated that the wife would retain access to the land. [28]

Women as Farm Workers and Labour Tenants

With the exception of the Western Cape, very few women are able to access full-time employment on farms. Those who are able to secure full-time employment earn on average, 75% less than their male counterparts [29] and do not have paid leave or maternity benefits. [30] At the same time, women account for the majority of seasonal and casual farm workers - earning between R7 to R10 per day for limited and irregular periods. [31] Women's tenure rights on commercial farms remain precarious because tenure, housing and employment are linked to the employment contracts of male relatives on most farms. Generally if a male partner/relative is evicted his family will also be forced to leave. Farmers generally provide housing only to male household-heads thus discriminating against single women and female-headed households. [31]

Women are also obliged to work on the farms of their husbands'/male relatives' employer and are subject to third party agreements between male workers and their employers. [33] Research shows that 51% of employers tacitly include a male worker's female partner in his employment agreement, that only 37% of employers interview a women applicant herself and that 60% of employers insist that a male worker's partner must be available to work on the farm. In addition, 52.4% of women report that accommodation is linked to their male partner's contract and 48% of employers state that should a male partner leave or die his female partner would also have to leave the farm. [34]

The LTA has not provided greater security of tenure for female labour tenants who according to the definition of a labour tenant provided in the Act are not labour tenants and therefore have no independent rights to land. In some instances a labour tenant's family may continue to use the land in question for a limited period after an eviction (normally 12 months). Hornby argues that the mediation of rights through the labour tenant who in most cases is a male household-head raises questions around the constitutionality of the tenure security that the Act provides for women. [35]

Other land reform projects

Share-equity schemes, in which beneficiaries are registered as independent shareholders, do not appear to have had a particularly beneficial effect on women's land access. The Surplus People's Project (SPP) conducted a study of four share-equity schemes in 1998 - Hoogland Farm in Mpumalanga, Ebukhosini, Whitehall and Warmwater in the Western Cape. The study found that the majority of the beneficiaries were men, that gender issues were not incorporated into the business plans of these schemes and that women were paid less than men were for similar jobs. The general perception among community members was that men were the beneficiaries of DLA grants, even when these grants were paid to the household or when women applied as co-applicants. Women also did not get the same employment and training opportunities as men. The study found that men still tried to prevent women from participating in the schemes. Further findings show that equity schemes enabled men (and not women) to accumulate capital - when farm workers were given the option to buy more shares with their dividends, the men tended to do so while women spent their dividends on household goods. [36]

Informal land tenure and land invasions could in some cases provide women with a better opportunity to access land. The Group Four residents of Merino Walk for example, illegally invaded land in 1991. Women at Merino Walk were able to obtain access to residential land on a level relatively equal to that of the men. Middelton [37] argues that there are two basic reasons for this. Firstly the relaxation of traditional norms and standards and secondly, the fact that women were not hampered by a lack of financial resources to obtain land.

Why has Land Reform failed women?

The Land Reform Programme has done little to improve women's access to land. The programme failed women because policies and procedures did not take account of women's inferior position in society i.e. unequal division of labour, institutionalised violence, lack of legal protection, social services, education and training, patriarchal patterns of land allocation, traditional authorities, cultural restrictions and the lack of female participants in policy formulation and implementation.

1. Violence

Gender inequities in land access/ ownership are exacerbated by the additional burden of domestic violence that many women face. Social isolation and the lack of places of safety for abused women in rural areas combined with the fact that many women retain access to land, housing and employment only through male relatives leave rural women with little option other than to stay in abusive relationships [38] . In a study conducted by Artz [39] , 100% of respondents said that they feared losing everything if they brought a charge against their abusive partners. Studies indicate that domestic violence in rural areas is on the increase. [40] Some argue that this is the result of high unemployment levels and the consequent return of men to the rural areas. [41] May et all for example, document frequent reports of domestic violence as unemployed men return to the rural areas and beat their wives either to assert their authority and/or to appropriate their wives' meagre assets. [42] Others argue that societal change is a stressful condition for individuals and, because the gender power balance is weighted against women, women bear the brunt of men's negative responses to change. [43]

2. Not a monolithic category

The Land Reform Programme is based on genderless categories such as households, families and communities. This omits the influence of power relations in society on land access. The DLA's gender specific policies treat women as a monolithic category whereas women differ in terms of tenure preference, land needs, social standing, and access to resources and capabilities. The result is that women who are better educated and economically more secure are more visible to officials and better placed to advance themselves than the mass of poorer and more marginalised women. [44]

3. Specific land demands

Like many rural men many rural women look at the urban sector and urban employment as a route to household economic survival and advancement. [45] In a context of already high unemployment rates women are less likely to secure employment and are paid less when they do. Access to land thus remains a crucial factor in the economic survival of female-headed households in rural areas. At the same time skewed power relations in society imply that men are more vocal about their land demands. Land reform officials tend to assume that the perspective put forward by male members of communities represents the overall community perspective. Since women have very different demands and needs for land, they tend to be excluded from the benefits of land reform projects. In Merino Walk (a land reform project in the former Ciskei) the initial resettlement plan was based on the community's apparent demand for large residential and arable plots and ample grazing land. When women were finally consulted it became apparent that women demanded small gardens or small fields on which to grow vegetables. [46] Similarly, a study of the Ekuthuleni community at Labuschagneskraal in the Midlands regions of KwaZulu-Natal revealed that because men continue to dominate in decision-making structures a large proportion of the land at Ekuthuleni was set aside for grazing, despite the fact that female-headed households rarely owned cattle. In fact a survey conducted among the beneficiaries at Ekuthuleni indicated that women wanted land for cultivation (mainly subsistence cultivation). In addition the survey showed that women in the community tended to obtain access to more marginal, more remote and less fertile land (particularly single women). In cases where land legally belonged to "the household" 72% of female respondents felt that their male relatives owned the land. [47]

Women's demand for land is tied to their social reproductive function in society. The majority of women interviewed in a study conducted in KwaZulu-Natal identified the following principle uses for land: gardens for subsistence and income generation, infrastructure, residential use and growing thatching grass. [48] Case studies have shown that men and women have different interpretations of the optimum resolution of their land claims. In these cases women tended to push for options where they would remain in current settlement areas (close to employment opportunities, schools, and community structures) and receive additional land and priority access to development and social services, while men tended to push for resettlement and agricultural production and/or grazing land. [49] Due to their social responsibilities women tend to be bound to their neighbourhood locale or home and thus prefer to acquire land situated near the homestead. Mjoli [50] argues that this gives women more control over their resources so that men are less likely to appropriate the land. It also enables women to engage in agricultural production while fulfilling social responsibilities like child rearing at the same time. The majority of women appear to demand land for the production of supplies to supplement household income and food security. [51] Their demands are centred on survival and securing a place to live. This is not because women are unwilling to engage in commercial agricultural production but is the result of oppressive societal relations.

Women tend to place more emphasis on the provision of infrastructure. Women from the Sheba community in Mpumalanga for example, expressed the need for schools, clinics, roads, employment opportunities, training and water while older male members were interested in farming and grazing land. [52] Even when men and women have similar needs (i.e. water) implementation policies should be gender sensitive. For example, Mjoli [53] found that men chose water points located far away from homesteads (men based their choice on convenience for livestock production) which increased women's workload - i.e. fetching water. Women preferred water resources closer to homesteads, for domestic and labour saving purposes.

4. Beneficiary selection

International experience indicates that beneficiary selection procedures based on assumptions about "sustainable" or "efficient" land reform have discriminated against women. Beneficiary selection in Kenya aimed to ensure that land ownership went to the most "able" farmers in other words, those with the resources to invest in land effectively excluding women. In Zimbabwe (1986) the requirement that potential beneficiaries have a Master Farmer Certificate and agricultural implements effectively excluded women from beneficiary lists. [54]  

As long as the majority of the rural population is excluded from beneficiary lists no land reform programme can be "sustainable" or "efficient". Quota systems (e.g. 40% women) and target groups need to be incorporated in beneficiary selection procedures. LRAD set a target (33%) for the number of female beneficiaries. In a context of limited government capacity, patriarchal social systems and the absence of effective monitoring and evaluation structures however, it is unlikely that this target will be met.

5. Market based land reform

Bernstein argues that the commitment to redressing gender inequalities is constrained by trying to meet this objective within the framework of a market-based reform. [55]   A combination of apartheid laws and cultural and social norms has limited African women's access to land. Market-based land reform cannot address this inequitable distribution of land unless social and power relations in society change fundamentally. Furthermore, because women generally lack purchasing power they are not likely to access land through the market.

6. Cultural and social discrimination

The 1997 White Paper on Land Reform acknowledges that discriminatory customary and social practices are largely responsible for gender inequities in land ownership and access and requires that traditional tenure systems adapt to accommodate the changing position of women. This commitment to gender equity in land ownership has not translated into reality for two principle reasons. Firstly patriarchal attitudes among community members and leadership structures ensure that women do not participate effectively in the land reform process. In many cases the largely male leadership structures have argued that the government cannot prescribe gender relations to communities. [56] Secondly there appears to be a tension between the ANC's commitment to gender equality and its reluctance to alienate or effectively curtail the powers of traditional authorities. [57]

Women's access and rights to land are mediated through male relatives in communal tenure systems and land reform projects. Thus the labour tenant community that acquired the farm Gannahoek in KwaZulu-Natal "had very conservative feelings about holding and transferring land, and it was difficult to persuade them to grant rights to women". [58] There is enormous variation from one communal tenure system to another and different groups of women experience different levels of discrimination. Nevertheless, women usually do not qualify to hold land independently from men. With regard to married women, for example, a survey conducted in the Eastern Cape found that communities considered the allocation of land rights to married women impossible. All such rights are vested in husbands who are considered household-heads. [59] The NLC argues that this is a nation-wide tendency. [60] The Eastern Cape survey indicated "considerable relaxation" of traditional attitudes towards single women, with single women increasingly gaining rights to residential land. Practices vary, however, and according to the NLC, single women are usually prohibited from owning or accessing productive land. In yet other cases, single women are denied access to land altogether, unless they can rely on mediation by a male relative. [61]  Widows, in some cases, gain access to residential and productive land through inheritance. According to the NLC, the rights of widows tend to be stronger where the widow is older and has children. On the other hand, there are many cases in KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape and elsewhere in South Africa, where widows are deprived of their property after the death of a spouse. [62]

Inheritance in rural South Africa is along patriarchal lines. Widows can inherit land, but would usually claim or receive the land in the name of a son. Women who inherit land often sell their land before a male relative can claim it. The Zimbabwean Model A resettlement schemes provide a relatively successful example of overcoming societal inheritance taboos. Unofficial government policy on the Model A schemes allowed land to be registered in widows' names. This has improved the status of some women when compared to the status of widows in Zimbabwe's communal areas. [63] A South African redistribution case study, at Cornfields, indicates that views and attitudes to inheritance are changing. Although the norm at Cornfields is that the oldest son inherits land, a survey showed that 76% of men and women - with more women than men - agreed that the law should be changed to allow women to inherit and own land. [64] On April 30, 2003, the Deeds Registries Amendment Act 9 of 2003 came into operation in South Africa. One of the purposes of the Act is to amend the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937 and, thereby, provide for the registration of immovable property in the name of persons married under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998. According to section 7 of the Act, a customary marriage entered into after the date of commencement stipulated in the Act (November 15, 2000), in which a spouse is not a partner in any other existing customary marriage, is a marriage in community of property and of profit and loss, unless such consequences are specifically excluded in an antenuptial contract regulating the matrimonial property system of their marriage. [65] If people are made aware of the Act, it could give women stronger land rights and may also undermine some of the current patriarchal inheritance practices.

7. Authority

The Land Reform Programme has not produced tangible results for women with regard to authority. Rural women remain grossly under-represented in local government structures and are still excluded from public life. Land administration in rural areas is still largely based on the jurisdiction of traditional authorities who tend to discriminate against women. This effectively excludes women from the structures of authority that regulate access to, and use of, land within communal tenure systems.

With regard to tenure reform, the 1997 White Paper on Land Reform was clear on the requirement that women should have equal decision-making and land holding rights in any group that received land rights. The Communal Property Association Act 28 of 1996 requires a land holding group to draft a constitution which sets out the rules governing access to and management of jointly owned land. These rules should conform to the Constitution of South Africa, which implies equal rights for women. Empirical evidence from South African case studies indicates that women are still under-represented on CPAs and other community decision-making structures and, that patriarchal decision-making remains the order of the day. In the case of the formation of the Sibongile Trust in Kwakwatsi in the Free State, only 32 of the 166 beneficiaries are female and only three of the six trust members are female. [66] Of the Solane Community Trust, in Mpumalanga, only two of the ten trustees are women. [67] A study by the Monitoring and Evaluation section of the DLA in the Northern Province found that in two land reform projects (Makuleke and Mashashane) women were excluded from decision-making on production and identification of land, despite the fact that they actively participated in the election of executive committees. [68] In Cornfields, of the two key decision making structures, the Residents' Committee does not have any female members and the Trust Committee has a minority of women members who lack community support. [69] The Sheba Community Trust in Mpumalanga has 13 members, five of whom are female. [70] Cousins and Cousins, therefore recommend that a quota system be introduced to ensure female representation on CPAs and other community decision-making structures. [71]

8. Agricultural constraints

Although women are often de facto rights holders in rural areas as a result of male migration to urban areas, their ability to make decisions is restricted by the requirement that they obtain their husbands' permission on issues of substance. [72] Societal restrictions on women's movement are a further constraint to female entrepreneurial activity. [73] Traditional authorities also have a negative impact on women's ability to engage in agricultural production. Women who start farming land as entrepreneurs often face the possibility of sanctions from traditional authorities. [74]

The argument is often made that secure access to land is one prerequisite for efficient agricultural production. If this argument is accepted, it stands to reason that women's insecure tenure rights is a major impediment to the development of female agricultural production. Similarly, as long as women lack control over the resources at their disposal their ability to use land for productive purposes will be limited.

9. Technology

Skewed power relations contribute to the fact that women are still not consulted on the introduction of new technology. Accordingly, when new "labour saving" technology is introduced, it is often inappropriate to women's needs. Much of the technology and equipment is designed for traditional male duties such as ploughing. In Nigeria, this led to the displacement of women. [75] In Zambia's northern province, the introduction of tractors meant that larger land areas were cultivated. This increased the demand on women's labour, as weeding increased with the land areas under cultivation. [76]

10. Agricultural development programmes

In many African counties, agricultural development programmes have not solved problems such as profitable production and food insecurity because these policies did not recognise women's particular contribution to agriculture. Endely [77] argues that various approaches and models - intensive and large-scale farming, integrated rural development, green revolution and land reform - had more negative than positive effects on women's agricultural activities. There are three basic reasons for this. Firstly, many of these reform projects focus on cash and export crop production. This effectively excludes the majority of African women who are involved in small-scale farming aimed at attaining food security or selling on a local market for a small cash income. [78] The production of cash crops (for example, coffee and sugar cane in Kenya [79] ) tends to increase the work burden on women. Policies to promote cash crop production in Zambia, in the 1960s, also increased the demands on women's labour. The result was a decline in the nutritional status of children under five, because women no longer had time to prepare meals. [80] In the Ekuthuleni case, the introduction of cash crops increased competition for land, thereby reducing the amount of land available for household food production. By implication, women in Ekuthuleni depend increasingly on cash to buy the food their households consume. [81] The fact, that only 5% of the households in Ekuthuleni have access to (outside) paid work, suggests the possibility of future impoverishment and increased food insecurity and malnutrition.

Secondly, cash crop production tends to give men more control over income and resources. The result is that despite increases in overall family income, families tend to eat less and poorer food. Women tend to spend their money on their families, household goods, and on local goods (thus contributing to community development) [82] . Men, on the other hand, tend to spend money on themselves: radios, liquor, sex-workers etc. [83] In India, for example, researchers estimate that men spend 80% of their earnings on themselves, while Indian women spend 95% of their earnings on their children. [84]   Thirdly, agricultural development policies tend to recognise men and, not women, as potential contributors to agricultural development. Policies are developed to integrate men into commercial agricultural production while women remain in small-scale subsistence farming. [85] A possible solution would be to invest in women's education. Research conducted by Sender & Smith in Tanzania, for example, suggested an association between female education and the development of progressive farming. [86]

11. Small-scale agriculture

Women in South Africa's rural areas are arguably the mainstay of small-scale agriculture (60%), of the farm labour force and of day to day subsistence production but are generally not involved in commercial/large-scale production. [87] Women engage in subsistence and small-scale production primarily for food security, to save money against household budgets and as insurance against cash income failure or unemployment. Women are relegated to small-scale and subsistence agriculture primarily because they lack the resources (financial and land) necessary to farm large pieces of land, to enter cash crop production, or to compete with established commercial farmers. A survey in the Northern Province in 1995, for example, found that men consistently achieved higher earnings from agricultural production due to their larger land holdings. [89] Cross [90] found that women are more risk averse than men, that men are more likely to risk cash investments, that men's approach to farming is more profit driven, and that men are more likely to invest in agricultural equipment.

Research, however, has also provided ample evidence in support of the argument that women have the potential to make a significant contribution to agricultural and rural development. Cross found that women are willing to start production with less land and that women plant all their land more often than men do. The 1995 Northern Province survey found that women consistently had higher yields, that women indicated a strong interest in deriving an income from agriculture, that women were very responsive to incentives and, made greater use of technological improvements such as new seed varieties and fertiliser. Women certainly are experienced farmers and, as the NLC argues, although agricultural production makes up only 10% of the income of rural African households, it is the third most popular source of livelihood and remains one of the only options open to the very poor (female-headed households) in rural areas.

12. Time and the implications for food security

African women perform multiple roles in society ranging from production, marketing, food processing, animal husbandry, caring for aged and disabled members of society, child care, house cleaning, building and maintaining traditional houses, and the collection of fuel and water. The AIDS pandemic is likely to increase women's burden and place greater demands on their time. A study conducted by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation found that African women are responsible for 70% of food crop production, 50% of animal husbandry, 60% of marketing, and 100% of food processing, in addition to child care and other household responsibilities. [91] The shortage of labour saving technology and urban migration further increases the burden on women in Africa.

In South Africa, women are responsible for the majority of agricultural (70%) and household labour. The LAPC estimated that South African women contributed 80% of unpaid labour. [92] In 2000, Statistics South Africa conducted the fieldwork for the first time-use study in South Africa. [93] The study found that men (on average) spent 13% of their day on activities that are included in calculations of gross domestic product and 6% of their day on non-SNA production. Women spent (on average) 9% on their day on SNA-production [94] and 15% of their day on non-SNA production. [95] Men spend (on average) less that 1% of their time caring for persons in their households, while women spend at least 2% of their time doing this. Finally, women, with children living with them, spent on average 87 minutes a day on childcare compared to seven minutes per day for men in the same situation.

Time, is therefore, a scarce resource for women. Unrealistic demands on women's time and labour have a negative impact on society as a whole. Experiences in Zambia's northern province clearly illustrate this point. From the 1930s, low agricultural productivity and food insecurity in Zambia's northern province has primarily been explained as a result of the absence of male labour due to the migrant labour system. [96] Moore and Vaughan quote from a study conducted in the 1930s, which found, however, that food insecurity was just as prevalent in areas where the ratio of men and women were more or less equal. What the study showed was that food supply was adequate during certain seasons of the year but that families lacked access to food and nutrition because women were too busy to prepare meals. Another example is Burkina Faso, where people loose weight during the rainy season because women are to exhausted to cook. [97] It is the failure to account for women's role in food production and preparation that underlies the limited successes of a wide variety of projects and policies to reduce malnutrition and increase food security (principally through increased production). As Kent argues, malnutrition and food insecurity is partly the result of the fact that women have not been able to play a significant role in their societies and therefore, the key to increased food security is to "have women play more of a decision-making role, helping to shape the social conditions under which food systems function". [98]

A survey in South Africa's Northern Province found that younger women especially, are constrained by household chores and therefore cannot engage in commercial agricultural activity. [99] The Land Reform Programme, therefore, cannot address gender inequities in land unless policies acknowledge that time is a scarce resource for women. An example, of a policy intervention that could improve women's economic status and agricultural productivity, is improved access to water and electricity. The 1996 South African Population Census estimated that 45% of African households were still obtaining water from dams, rivers, springs and wells and that 75.7% of Africans in rural areas did not have access to electricity. [100] Fetching water and firewood absorbs time and energy that could be devoted to agricultural production.

Other policy interventions should include the provision of rural childcare facilities, women's abuse centres, transport facilities, communication systems and effective empowerment of women to enable them to play influential roles in decision-making structures. It is absolutely crucial that women gain access to education. An empirical study conducted in India, for example, indicated a direct correlation between increased education for women and improved child nutrition. Furthermore, a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute found that women's status and education levels account for 54.6% of the variation in child malnutrition. [101] This is particularly important in South Africa, where 39% of the population is vulnerable to food insecurity.

Conclusion

The government's commitment to gender equity is commendable. Yet, legislation and policy alone cannot guarantee equitable access to land for women because of the patriarchal nature of South African society. A variety of factors relating to women's social position, including traditional authorities, domestic violence, marginalisation, time constraints and the inability to compete financially on an open land market must be addressed prior to, and during, the land reform process. What is required is a radical transformation of society in order to defeat the patriarchal norms and standards that contrive to tyrannise women. The emergence of a strong women's rural movement is a necessary condition for radical change. Policy measures to improve women's access to land should include the provision of education and training, health services (including places of safety for abused women), legal aid, childcare facilities and human rights education.